Congress: Stop Trying to Limit EFF’s Ability to Challenge Patents

Re:Congress: Stop Trying to Limit EFF’s Ability to Challenge... by Animats on Friday April 24, 2015 @03:58PM (#9435680)

"Failing that, independent invention needs to be a 100% defense against infringement"

Won't work. That's a state-of-mind issue. Infringers will claim "independent infringement", when in fact they got the idea from the patented work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congress: Stop Trying to Limit EFF’s Ability to Challenge... by ahomescu1 on Friday April 24, 2015 @09:37PM (#9436818)

Sure, and then it would be up to the patent holder to prove intentional infringement. Otherwise, they don't get anything. That's how the legal system works in many other situations, the accuser has to prove their accusations, which is perfectly reasonable to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congress: Stop Trying to Limit EFF’s Ability to Challenge... by Animats on Saturday April 25, 2015 @12:56AM (#9437260)

Patent infringement doesn't require intent. An "independent invention" defense rewards infringers who keep their technology secret. If the technology is publicly disclosed by an independent party prior to the patent application date, it's not patentable anyway. But secret independent invention is not prior art. Part of the idea behind patents is to reward public disclosure. After the 20 years are up, anybody can do it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congress: Stop Trying to Limit EFF’s Ability to Challenge... by ahomescu1 on Saturday April 25, 2015 @05:26AM (#9437789)

> Patent infringement doesn't require intent.

I know, but that's the whole point: maybe it should (in a lawsuit at least).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congress: Stop Trying to Limit EFF’s Ability to Challenge... by nitrogen on Saturday April 25, 2015 @02:39AM (#9437489)

Git histories and lab notebooks can demonstrate independent invention by showing the process leading to independent discovery.

[ Parent | on HN ]